Tolerance cannot be measured in terms of degrees of intolerance. I am essentially opposed to burning books even when they incite others to violence. But freedom is either an absolute or it is conditioned on not inciting others to violence. Anything else is rationalized bigotry.

Search This Blog

Thursday, September 20, 2012

President Obama Guardian of Freedom

I listened to President Obama on
the morning of 19th September and I admit that I am confused.He stated that the President of the United States
is president of all the people, not just Democrats or Republican but both.This is all well and good but it was a missed
opportunity to show that he was more than a politician; perhaps even a
global Statesman for the twenty-first century.

And God knows, we sorely need
one.

We have had calls for restraint
as Muslims riot, burn and kill across 30 nations in protest at what was
essentially a set-up by Muslim extremists and we have had threats of
retaliation and court cases.All this is
a violation of our right to free speech.

I do not understand our cowardice
or the president’s reticence to step up to the plate (or to the crease for
those who prefer the cricket metaphor to baseball).

So let us examine what are the
issues?

Freedom of expression is one of
the pillars of democracy. There are times that we must show restraint – shouting fire in a cinema is one classic
example; at other times a lack of restraint
is simply bad manners, and perhaps this is one of the terrible things that have
accompanied our obsession with individuality that it is at the expense of
common decency. We say what we think as if the consequences were unimportant.
As movie making has developed since the 1960’s we have seen the boundaries of
what is permissible reduced to almost no boundaries either to what we may say
or, to what we may view. It is this absence of self-restraint that has spilled
over and into society providing reactionary forces everywhere with the evidence
(so they believe) that our nations are experiencing their death knell.

Nevertheless, while the time is
long overdue for us to examine our laws with respect to communication across
the board, the principle that freedom of expression is sacred also means we
should be wary of sacrilege. And here’s the rub. If to portray Muhammad as less
than an angel is wrong then so is distribution or publication of the Koran,
anywhere in the free world.

The Koran is not a book that
encourages the faithful to respect their fellow man. It is neither tolerant nor
peaceful. But it is conditional, and that qualified tolerance is dependent upon
acquiescence to restricted rights. So must we weigh rights against
sensitivities? Or is the right to offend conditional?To the latter question I shout a resounding
NO.Because then it is not what is
offensive that we inevitably examine but who we may offend.And that is a form of fascism.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “It is
easier to live with the no-truth or half-truth, but it is tedious to live with
the whole truth.”Can there be Peace
with Islam while their world knows only extremists and purveyors of propaganda;
disseminators of lies and hate?Can we
continue to suffer guilt for the colonial policies of former European powers
while ignoring the atrocities of Islam?

And while we may think these are
isolated and unfortunate occurrences that are not worth the trouble of
confronting there are far too many instances of acquiescence to the threat of
violence to which our governments have already caved in. Two examples follow:

A couple of weeks ago the first
episode of a new TV series on the Prophet Muhammad aired on ITV4, a government/taxpayer
funded channel that broadcasts here in the UK. The series is based on the writings of British
author, Tom Holland (in particular his most recent book “In the Shadow of the
Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire”). In it he claims there is no proof that the
prophet existed. After receiving 1,200 complaints and threats against the
presenters’ life the remainder of the series was shelved.And then there is the wonderfully imaginative
‘His Dark Materials’ trilogy by Philip Pullman.The first movie ‘The Golden Compass’ was financially successful but the
final two instalments were never made. Philip Pullman admitted that the Vatican applied
sufficient ‘pressure’ to ensure that censorship won out over entertainment.

Perhaps 33,000 Muslims have been
brutally killed in Syria
over the last year and a half and the Arab world prevaricates over taking any
action to bring it to an end. Maybe I missed the plethora of condemnations in
the UN General Assembly, the Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council
but a short 15 minute, badly made video on YouTube is the catalyst for global protests.And to show their respect for the infidel the
Egyptian Brotherhood has promised to set up a new movie channel devoted to anti-Christian and anti-Zionist (anti-Semitic) productions. The problem being that
this already happens and there are no world wide protests or demands that they
cease their obscene fabrications, nor has there been violence or killings. Every
year in Islamic Iran a Holocaust denial competition encourages attendees to
produce the most abhorrent of anti- Jewish caricatures.

We are the abused partner in this
asymmetric relationship, constantly surprised when we are beaten up or molested
by our Muslim mate when in fact this is what they know; they expect it to
continue and are outraged when it does not. It is a recognized and much
documented psychopathology and until we
change the dynamic of the relationship the Islamic world will have no reason to
even consider its own delinquency.

We live in a world of
intellectual cowardice where the global bully can literally, get away with
murder and from the leader of the free world, instead of taking the opportunity
to call for a global ‘time-out’ on hatred what we receive is a request from the
White House to Google to review whether “Innocence of Muslims” has violated YouTube’s’
terms of use.

With respect to the President, a
famous Mexican revolutionary leader named Emiliano Zapata Salazar once said “It
is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.” I would add that the
reason for this is that those that live on their knees are eventually deprived
of even that painful right.

4 comments:

this has been going on for the last 20 years and it's not surprising, considering the total betrayal by our leaders. every step of the destruction of sovereign countries and cultural identity has been plotted and planned in advance as part of the global government. the united nations agenda is not a conspiracy, it's on their web site in plain sight, agenda 21, the codex, and the other great elephant in their conference room. the destruction of the country they gave back to the jews, quietly hoping the arabs would finish the job europe started.that didn't happen.israel is the litmus test for the whole game, it's the pawn they will sacrifice for a peaceful life with islam, they already have done it. most of the planet thinks israel is the most dangerous country on earth, most people think the jews run the banks, are behind 9-11, zionism is nazism and israel is a brutal apartheid state that oppresses palestinians. the sad thing is there are so many jews who agree with most of this worldview. last week i watched a discussion on tv in sydney, it was broadcast live and is one of the most watched shows in the country. one of the guests was the controversial israeli historian illan pappe who went on to say isreal was as bad as south africa in the 70s, it had ethically cleansed the indigenous population and the civilised world should boycott the country. the arab world was just in it's feelings towards the hypocrisy of american imperialism and it's pro israel alliance.this was completely unquestioned and the live audience clapped. the next morning in coffee shops and on the streets most of the public accepted this point of view without question despite the fact there are many historians who discredit pappes marxist perspective. the fact is islamists want a caliphate, they want israel and the west will give it to them because it needs peace and oil and jews are a minority now, a weak spent force who don't riot, don't shout loudly at the distorted facts the bbc churn out, the guardian prints and they and don't question the vilification and delegitimisation of their homeland. anyone who comes from an opposing point of view is labeled a racist, a bigot or a right winger. think i am exaggerating? watch this space.

apologies that was not a question directed at you, it was a question the interviewer was asking. he never got his answer. it's a silly interview conducted by a silly interviewer but he is challenging a situation that no other media seems to challenge, and this is part of the problem. the jihadist's have the west petrified and cowering in appeasement. they will concede everything to buy time, probably because it's now just a numbers game. where are the worlds leaders, whom are the governments representing, where is the oppositions. all over the world it's the same, so called democracy is on it's knees, yet it's the best we have when it's run correctly.